-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Arcane Power- Wizards Stretched Thin
- Thread starter exile
- Start date
So you don't have to land... but if you don't then you fall. Interesting.
Thanks!
Reading over the Fly keyword in the Monster Manual and Fly rules in the DMB, the following sticks out at me: "If you fail to fly at least 2 squares during your turn, whether due to not moving far enough or simply not using the fly action, you crash at the end of your turn." Also, the altitude limit is the same as the Fly number, so here it would be Dexterity modifier.
So - Sorcerer can put himself (DEX) squares in the air as a Move action. Each turn he has to at least move 2 around the battlefield or he falls. If he uses it to make the Ranger fly around and he leaves him hovering in mid-air without a ledge, the Ranger will be unable to move 2 during his turn and therefore fall at the end of it.
So we only have a problem with the Sorcerer being out of range for melee attacks, and only if he keeps moving around the battlefield. I don't see how this is particularly bad, since any good party would have the Sorcerer in the backfield anyways - and any good encounter is going to have at least a few ranged attackers to plink away at him while he moves around.
chaotix42
First Post
@ baberg - Altitude limit is not a restriction on every flight-capable creature as far as I can tell, only a quality of flight like clumsy. A search in the DDI Compendium only brings up one monster with an altitude limit, and it's a wraith from Dungeon.
I also think it could stand to be clarified that you fall at the end of your flight if you haven't landed. Perhaps you can't stay aloft unless you have a true fly speed, but it still seems ambiguous to me.
I also think it could stand to be clarified that you fall at the end of your flight if you haven't landed. Perhaps you can't stay aloft unless you have a true fly speed, but it still seems ambiguous to me.
Last edited:
pssst....baberg...is it okay to freak out now? Has the burden of brokenness been met in full?
OK, I gotta ask...."IMBA"?
Battle.net forum joke. In times of yore, a poster was excited and was attempting to illustrate by typing his subject in all caps, something along the lines of "SOANDSO IS CHEAP AND IMBALANCED!" but there is a character limit on the subject line, so it came out as "SOANDSO IS CHEAP AND IMBA". Hilarity ensued.
Dominant Winds will break poorly though-out encounters. It's not going to break the game.
When I ran the introductory sample Delve Night campaign, I told the players to throw out all stat requirements for feats.
What point do such rigid prerequisites serve other than to pidgeonhole stat progressions for players that want to use a certain feats?
It is particularly bad because A) simply being in the backfield does not stop melee attacks from reaching you--at the very least, someone has to form a front line to protect you--and B) the pretext that in order for any encounter to be deemed "good" encounter it has to include a compliment of ranged attackers is pretty questionable.
Seeing the text didn't really allay any concerns. I think a 16th-level sorcerer can swing a +2 Dex, so he has his minimum movement covered.
This is a pretty equivocal statement. Rather than deeming Dominant Winds to be a poorly-thought-out power with tons of abuse potential, the rationale becomes that any encounter is "poorly-thought-out" because it fails to account for a character that has an extra plane of movement.
Personally, I can envision many good ideas for encounters that don't happen to involve a token compliment of ranged attackers. Any power that is only balanced when the DM alters every scenario just to mitigate it is not very balanced.
Sometimes things are legitimately imbalanced.
Last edited:
